Zimbabwe's opposition
says President Robert Mugabe's success at last week'sAfrican Union summit
came as a surprise. He was named to a one-year term asthe organization's
ambassador to Southern Africa. The opposition, Movementfor Democratic Change
says President Mugabe is the wrong man for the jobbecause he violates the
principles of the pan-African organization.Nevertheless, some analysts
disagree.

Critics say President Mugabe violates the AU charter, which
calls fordemocracy and human rights. His government is under sanctions by
GreatBritain, the United States and the Commonwealth for, among other
things,last year's disputed presidential elections.

Western observers
say the voting results were marred by violence andelectoral fraud. Also in
dispute is President Mugabe's land redistributionprogram. It confiscated the
land of over a thousand white commercial farmerswithout compensation. The
land was handed over to landless blacks and scoresof political allies, many
without prior farming experience.

But President Mugabe's poor track
record has not slowed his rise withinAfrican organizations.

Before
being named as the AU's ambassador for Southern Africa, he was alsothe head
of the defense committee of the Southern African DevelopmentCommunity
(SADC). This, despite the fact that Zimbabwe's security forceshave been
accused of human rights abuses.

President Mugabe said his election to the
AU post shows that Africans havegreater admiration for Zimbabwe than ever
before. A spokesman for SouthAfrican president Thabo Mbeki said there was
nothing wrong with namingPresident Mugabe to the job, noting that the
European Union also rotates itsleaders among various posts.

Still,
the move by the AU came as a surprise to Sekai Holland, the secretaryfor
International Affairs for the opposition Movement for Democratic
Change(MDC). Ms. Holland, who attended the AU summit in Maputo, says the AU
mayhave rewarded President Mugabe with the post in exchange for his
retirementnext year from national politics.

"We hear he is
stepping down [as head of his ruling ZANU-PF party] inDecember and then
calling elections 12 weeks after that," she said. "But Ido not think that
will happen the Africans have given him this as asettlement, and they will
get a shock when he does not step down and haveelections in March. Mugabe
has made these promises before and he has notstepped down, and he is not
going to."

Others are not so harsh. Che Ajulu, a researcher at the
African Institute ofSouth Africa in Pretoria, says, "In every regional
organization you alwayshave a couple of leaders who go in the opposite
direction. It would beeasier to deal with Mugabe if he is still part of the
system, once you lethim loose as a loose canon causing trouble and no way to
get him to thetable, it will be harder to deal with him."

For some, AU
support for the Zimbabwean leader is a show of resistance byAfrican leaders
to what they perceive as Western interference in
Africanaffairs.

"The African leaders are determined to put the
message across that they arenot going to be pushed around by the Bush
administration or the West ingeneral," said Gamal Nkrumah, foreign affairs
editor for Egypt's Al-Ahramweekly, and also the son of Ghanaian independence
leader Kwami Nkrumah."They feel that in the case of Mugabe that other
African leaders haveequally bad records of human rights and good governance
but the reasonRobert Mugabe is singled out is because of the race question
and the landquestion in Zimbabwe, because of European settlers of British
stock. And[they believe] Western leaders turn a blind eye toward similar
human rightsviolations in other African countries."

For Sekai
Holland, the only reason the West is paying attention to Zimbabweis because
the Movement for Democratic Change does a good job of makingitself
heard.

"If you see a woman screaming with a husband beating you up who
asks forhelp and then you see another woman hiding that she is being beaten,
whichone would you come to help first? Zimbabweans are people who are
organized,"she said. "This is why we are getting support."

Ms.
Holland says the situation in Zimbabwe was, in her words, a hot topic atthe
Maputo summit, even though it was not officially on the agenda. She saysa
delegation from her party met with government officials, civil society
andother political parties at the summit including representatives
ofMozambique's ruling party, FRELIMO. She says she helped update them on
thesituation in Zimbabwe and on straightening out misconceptions about
thecountry's opposition.

For example, she notes that the MDC and even
white commercial farmers favora conference to decide how to turn land over
to black farmers in a fair andequitable way. She adds that she also
explained to African nationalists thatPresident Mugabe is not acting on
their behalf.

"Mugabe has broken every rule of Pan Africanism," she said.
"Pan Africanismis rejection of the use of violence because it is about
having every onecontributing toward a solution. But [instead], Mugabe is
beating us up. Thenationalist struggle is [also] about one-person one-vote.
We gotindependence, but Mugabe has betrayed nationalists by depriving people
whodo not like him of the vote. He uses the militia from letting us go cast
ourvote."

Ms. Holland also points out that the Citizenship Act used
by the governmentto disenfranchise whites from voting has also harmed
African migrant workerswho have lived in Zimbabwe for generations. The act
forced anyone wishing toremain a citizen to repudiate dual citizenship from
any other country. Butmany complain that other nations in southern Africa,
as well as GreatBritain, do not have a mechanism for repudiating
citizenship.

"The Citizenship Act [disenfranchised] 2,000 whites and
one-and-a-halfmillion Zimbabwean [farm workers] with partial parentage from
Mozambique,Malawi or Zambia. [They are] the strongest base of MDC," said Ms.
Holland."Followers of Pan Africanism talk about Africa without boundaries
but we arekicking out one and a half million Africans from Zimbabwe to
places theirgrandfathers left 75 years ago, who were [parented] by
Zimbabweans."

Ms. Holland is confident the AU, under the chairmanship of
Mozambicanpresident Joachim Chissano, will help Zimbabwe's opposition find a
fair anddemocratic solution to Zimbabwe's crisis. She says that she's
impressed withMozambique under his leadership adding that Maputo is growing
middle andworking classes. She says with the deterioration of the country
underPresident Mugabe, it will likely take Zimbabwe decades to
catch.

The
appeal was made after Tsvangirai's lawyers this week asked the court tohalt
the trial against him and two senior party officials because the statehad
not proved its case against them.

"For now, there is enough evidence to
warrant that the accused persons beplaced on their defence," prosecutor
Morgen Nemadire told Judge PaddingtonGarwe.

So far the marathon trial
has only heard evidence from around a dozen statewitnesses.

The
charges against Tsvangirai and his co-accused hinge on a secretlyrecorded
videotape of a meeting the opposition leader held with Ari BenMenashe, a
Canada-based political consultant, in Montreal in late 2001.

It is
alleged that during the meeting Tsvangirai requested that Ben
Menasheassassinate President Robert Mugabe and arrange a coup for him to
take overpower.

The MDC trio deny the charges, which carry the death
penalty.

Defence lawyers have told the court it was highly improbable
that Tsvangiraiwould have approached a complete stranger like Ben Menashe
with a request toassassinate Mugabe.

However, prosecutors claimed
Wednesday that the MDC thought the politicalconsultant could be bought off,
and that the party wanted to exploit hiscontacts in the Zimbabwe government
to carry out the coup.

It is given to few in history to live
through seismic changes in thegeometry of international relations, massive
geo-political shifts which markthe transformation of one so-called
‘international order' into another. Suchevents are marked by great political
tremors, sometimes by a single violentsurge or quake after which things will
never be the same again, to befollowed by further tremors and aftershocks as
the world changes and adapts.

The End of the Cold War and the fall
of the Berlin Wall were such. Thehorror of 9/11, and the subsequent actions
in Afghanistan and in Iraq werethe tremors of readjustment on the
geo-political landscape that flowed fromthem.

Original
perspectives and fresh thinking are urgently needed. Thatwhich worked in the
past will not necessarily work today.

During the Cold War an uneasy
equilibrium existed as nations coalescedin two countervailing blocs around
NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

The possession of nuclear weapons by both
sides led to the ultimatedeterrent doctrine of mutually assured
destruction.

That doctrine worked because both sides reacted
rationally in theirassessment of the threats they faced. NATO and the UN
evolved in thisatmosphere. As did the EU.

It was then that the
doctrine of containment and deterrence wasdeveloped, worked. The Cold War
ended with passive victory for the West.

Hopes of peace however
were misplaced. We live now in a far moreuncertain world. As 9/11
demonstrated many of today's threats areirrational, unpredictable and able
to strike with little or no warning.Terrorism, the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, failed or roguestates, suppression, starvation, poverty
and disease – these are today'sthreats.

The key institutions –
the UN, NATO and the EU - were rattled by 9/11but by and large they
recovered their poise. The events leading up to theIraq conflict and its
aftermath changed that. The stresses tested theseinstitutions to their
limits causing them to crack and in some cases tofail.

The
swift war in Iraq was a highly successful military operation.Subsequent
wrangles about "the peace", however, have not resolved theproblems with the
UN, in NATO and in the EU. If anything the damage has beencompounded. It is
crucial that we urgently address the fundamentalchallenges now facing
them.

These are the vicarious victims of the war against Saddam
Hussein. Insome cases the wounds were caused by the war and its run-up; in
others theyalready existed but the harsh light of the crisis exposed
them.

We need to start by examining the injuries suffered by
theseinstitutions and then look at the ways in which they can best be
addressed.

In a world of pre-emption the need for a means of
legitimation of theactions of nations is pressing. Should the body that
confers such legitimacybe the UN, or another body or process? For many the
United Nations is stillwidely perceived as the ultimate organisation of
international co-operation,conferring necessary legitimacy on the actions of
states in theinternational arena, but we must ask whether it remains the
best way ofdoing so. The stark truth is that in the run up to the Iraq
conflict the UNSecurity Council was rendered impotent, and in February when
France made itexplicitly clear that it would veto any 'second' resolution on
Iraq whetherreasonable or supported by the majority of the Security Council,
it waseffectively gridlocked.

The drive for a second Security
Council Resolution gavedisproportionate influence to small countries on the
Security Council. Theirfears of being left to hang out to dry by France
effectively stymied thesecond resolution – they feared declaring their hand
only to find thatFrance vetoed the resolution anyway.

Far from
being part of the vaunted strength of the UNSC they turnedout to be
contributors to its weakness. Government proposals for SecurityCouncil
expansion will exacerbate this even further.

The result was stasis.
At a moment when the UNSC was most needed, itwas sidelined.

This raised a number of serious questions about the United Nations. Isthe
Security Council really supposed to follow through and enforce all
itsprevious resolutions? Does this only apply to Chapter 7 resolutions? In
anyevent what sanctions would be available to the UNSC to achieve
suchenforcement? Should permanent members have the unfettered right to
vetodraft resolutions at whichever stage and whatever their relationship
topreviously endorsed resolutions?

Is the 'big power' veto
still a legitimate way of proceeding? Thatveto which in the past had been
regarded as decisive was fundamentallychallenged when Tony Blair announced
that he would not be bound by 'anunreasonable veto'. What is an unreasonable
veto and how, by what criteriaand by who is it so defined?

As
the UN now faces its greatest crisis of credibility we must look tothe
future. Aside from its vital role in rebuilding Iraq, it faces a numberof
severe challenges; the international threat of weapons of massdestruction in
North Korea, the bloody genocide that has already claimed somany lives in
the Congo, and the impending threat of a politically createdhumanitarian
disaster in Zimbabwe and beyond.

It is a sign of real and
fundamental weakness that the UN has failedto get to grips with these
crises. Its record in censoring countries forhuman rights abuses leaves much
to be desired. A credible UN must show thatit is capable of tackling such
challenges, if it is not to risk becomingjust an expensive
accessory.

Then there is NATO which throughout the entire Iraq
conflict satuninvolved and unused. In what was arguably a defensive exercise
to remove apotential threat to members of NATO it had no role and made no
contribution.Indeed it only made the news when some members, as a gesture of
politicalprotest sought to prevent another member from receiving a missile
defencesystem it required for its self-defence.

The cornerstone
of the international security policy of Western Europefor over fifty years.
The key player within it was and remains the USA.Western Europe needs NATO.
Eastern Europe - demonstrated by their keennessto sign up – both wants and
needs NATO to ensure their stability. EvenRussia wants to be associated with
NATO. The big question is whether and forhow long the United States sees
value in remaining actively involved inNATO. NATO needs the US. If it is to
remain at the centre of our securitystrategy then the US must be persuaded
it needs NATO.

These US doubts were by no means new. Even before
Iraq they had begunto set in. After 9/11 there was a ‘moment' when for the
first time NATOinvoked Article 5. A traumatised US gratefully accepted this
as ademonstration of NATO's robust response to the threat to any of its
members.But that was where it ended. The Afghanistan war, despite
post-conflictinvolvement, was not a NATO engagement. The US and the UK bore
the brunt ofthat campaign. US doubts about the value of its unreciprocated
commitment toEurope through NATO increased. They developed in spades both in
the run upto and during the Iraq War when any sense of NATO solidarity was
not onlyabsent, but replaced by positive attempts to thwart it. From the
beginningof the conflict the spirit of NATO was undermined by France,
Germany andBelgium. Not only America had apparently begun to question NATO
and itsfuture role.

Some even argued that NATO has passed its
sell-by date. I disagree.The old role may have gone, but there are new
threats to be met. Prague lastautumn touched on the edges of this - but that
was pre-Iraq. The Iraqchallenge can now be summarised as both a regional and
international threatthat the UN balked at, and which had to be met by a
coalition of the willingwithout the cover of either of these institutions.
Could NATO have had arole, should it have had a role, and what should that
role have been?

Iraq was out of area, but then so is Afghanistan.
It was not classicself-defence, but then the doctrine of pre-emption rarely
is. Could in thisinstance NATO have embraced the doctrine of pre-emption
with all thepotential military obligations that would flow from that? Could
this haveencompassed authorising out-of-area conflicts, with what
justification, andon what legal principle? These are questions that need
answering.

The European Union was also severely damaged by the
diplomaticwrangles leading up to and through the Iraq war. France and
Germany alongwith eight other members ranged against the UK, Spain,
Portugal, Holland andItaly along with most of the new accession countries as
well. The schism wasdeep, crossing old friendships and oblivious to the
usual squabbles betweenarguments of integration versus
flexibility.

The fault line now lies between the traditionalist
Europeans on theone side and what might loosely be termed the 'Atlanticists'
on the other.This definition can be further refined by the pre-Iraq divide
that grewbetween the countervailing arguments of Europe and America or
Europe orAmerica? Those, more Lilliputian than David, who dream of a Europe
to rivaland compete with America have tended to be 'old Europe'. They
appeargenuinely to believe that Europe can become an emerging superpower to
rivalthe USA. By contrast many of those who are "new Europe" in their
thinking,particularly the Central and Eastern Europeans, while they
genuinely andwholeheartedly embrace Europe, see the US not as a rival but as
a liberatorand friend.

Post-Iraq Europe has lost
direction.

The certainties that bound it together are fractured.
Integrationistfriend has been set against integrationist friend. The concept
of a unifiedforeign policy is an unsalvageable victim. There is no unified
euro-vieweither on the foreign affairs front or in terms of defence and
security, noris there ever likely to be.

But the changed
circumstances go further. The comfortable progress tointegration has been
publicly undermined to the point of dis-integration –as witnessed earlier
this week by President Chirac backing away from thegrowth and stability
pact, a key symbol of integration..

All of a sudden the work on the
future of Europe, far from appearingforward and modern seems inward-looking
and out of date. The real choicelies between an improved and dynamic
partnership of sovereign nations and anincreasingly top heavy, out-of-touch
supranational entity that will soon toall intents and purposes become a
sovereign political union. In any eventthese choices are so fundamental that
any move towards the latter could onlylogically and legitimately proceed
with the consent of the British people,freely and democratically given in a
referendum before any treatyincorporating such changes is
ratified.

The lessons of Iraq must be learned. In the EU that means
not onlyrecognition that ever-closer integration simply will not work but
also thatthere is now a real risk of a transatlantic split.

These are all institution-centric problems. They became clear in therun-up
to and the conduct of the conflict in Iraq. There is however also awider
context that must be understood before we can suggest ways to proceedwith
modernising and changing these institutions.

We need for a start to
ask the fundamental question about the threeinstitutions as to what their
purpose is. It is only when purpose has beenestablished that we can begin to
look more closely at the options for reformand change. For the
moment we need to tread warily in seeking to provide completeor final
answers. The complexities of the solutions and theirinter-relationships are
great.

We must start by understanding what we are trying to
achieve. A worldwithout threatening or expansionist totalitarian hegemonies,
whetherreligious or secular. A world in which the Rule of Law, personal
andreligious freedom, and human rights are recognised and underwritten. A
worldin which terrorism as the enemy of civilization is pursued, rooted out
andeliminated with the cooperative efforts of the whole
internationalcommunity.

As Iain Duncan Smith said in Prague
last week there is a clear linkbetween global insecurity and injustice. In
tackling both of these ourself-interest has rightly coincided with our
conscience in preventingfailing states becoming rogue and potential breeding
grounds for terrorists.

In that context I will look at the
institutions in the reverse orderto that in which I introduced
them.

Europe is perhaps the easiest of the injured institutions
within whichto identify the options. They have been around for some time.
There areessentially two; a supranationalist European superpower, or a more
outwardlooking intergovernmental Union.

Even before Iraq many
of us had believed that some in Europe wereaiming for the bridge too far,
for the politically united Europe in a formthat could in the realms of
fantasy eventually rival the US as a superpower.This so-called 'projet' has
been on the agenda for some time. For many inEurope it is the fulfilment of
the grand dream that began some fifty yearsago. Its never was a realistic or
workable dream and nor is it now. Ratherpathetically it is the pursuit of a
fifty-year-old dream that is no longerrelevant to the challenges of today.
Iraq reawakened inherent weaknessesthat were already there under the
surface. Iraq brought them to the surface.

The newest draft
constitution, which is designed to be the guidingtext of the ‘project',
crystallises many of these weaknesses and fears. Forall the denials of our
government, what is on offer is a constitution for adiscrete political
entity, a politically united Europe, or – in the PrimeMinister's preferred
words – a ‘superpower'. The constitution embraces aseparate legal
personality for the EU. A declaration of the supremacy of EUlaw, explicit
for the first time in this Treaty. A five-year president. AForeign Secretary
with his own diplomatic service. A charter of legallyenforceable fundamental
rights. And many areas of policy from economiccoordination, through asylum
and immigration to a common foreign and defencepolicy where increasingly the
centralized institutions of the EU willexercise control. It is the near
fulfillment of the Europeansupranationalist dream.

Iain Duncan
Smith began the process of setting out a well-workedalternative to this in
Prague last week. Our preferred option is a Europethat is a genuine
partnership of sovereign nations, with carefully agreedrules of partnership.
It is not merged nor diluted. As Iain Duncan Smithsaid in Prague last week:
"Our vision of the New Europe is about more than ajust reaction to the
faults of the EU's existing arrangements". He went onto set out our positive
steps to make the EU work and in that speech he madevery clear that "The
European nations and the US cannot tackle globalinsecurity if we become
rivals rather than partners". In that sentence heput his finger on one of
the biggest problems facing the EU and itsadaptation to the post-Cold War
world – too often it tries to be built up into a rival bloc, not a partner,
of the US. I will touch on this a littlelater.

Ideally in what
is an increasingly fluid world what we are seeking isa partnership that is
agile and flexible and can match changingcircumstances. To achieve this it
would certainly be necessary to place lessstress on the Treaties and the
acquis - towards a simpler statement ofcompetences, to pursue framework
rather than specific directives, and toreturn power back to national
parliaments.

There is still a good deal of merit in the Gaullist
concept of the'Europe de Patries'. It has been heavily eroded by recent
treaties, to anextent by Maastricht but particularly and more recently by
Amsterdam andNice, which absorbed to the centre many national state
interests for almostnothing in return. It would therefore require proactive
retrieval of powerby the nation states. That will require determination and
strong politicalwill. The extent should now become a matter of urgent
consultation withlikeminded allies in Europe.

We could make
swift progress by genuinely accepting differentinterests which in turn
predicate different levels of involvement and atdifferent speeds. The best
example of this is currently in relation to theEuro, but it could extend to
other areas as well. In many ways this elementis more consistent with
enlargement than anything emanating from theConvention. While the
'applicant' countries may publicly purport to be'communitaire', privately
there is a good deal of unease about how toidentify and protect particular
national differences and difficulties. Anenlarged Europe will only work if
members, old and new, do not feel 'putupon' by established regional powers.
The ability to be different, inherentin any theory of variable geometry, is
not a luxury but an essential ifEurope is not to split from
within.

There is then the Europe working in partnership with rather
than inrivalry to America. The US, at the height of its strength, is
inevitablytempted towards the concept of 'unipolarity', to look to do things
on itsown, to resent and distance if not marginalize those erstwhile friends
whowhen the fair weather ended were noticeable at best by their absence and
atworst by downright hostility. What is required is the development of
aflexible Europe within which such groupings can occur without
underminingthe whole. It will need to be a relaxed Europe, which is capable
ofpresiding benignly over such groupings. It will need to be
anon-centralised, non-conforming, non-coercive Europe.

Above
all it must be a Europe based on the democracies of its nationalparliaments.
They should be initiators of legislation. They should be theforums of
accountability. They should have the right to prevent furtherintegration and
centralisation, applying principles of ‘subsidiarity andproportionality' as
it would be term in Europe, where it does not meet theagreed objectives of
the more outward looking EU. They should be the fountof power and authority,
through their governments, to the EU. That wouldcreate an EU that does meet
the needs of the new century, able to move withthe increasingly agile
partnerships that are modern international relations.

Then there is
NATO. If the underlying principle for us is the need tokeep the US bound
into European Security, then it is not possible simply toset NATO to one
side. Nor would it be right to do so. NATO is nowirreversibly enlarged. We
need to define the new strategic role for the newNato.

Territorial defence is clearly no longer its sole purpose. There is nolonger
a single static enemy. The new foes are multiple, diffuse, transientand
global. NATO has to be able to respond in much wider, more
pro-activedefensive role. The deterrent effect of its combined might needs
to be moremobile and more diffuse. Article 5, which I believe must remain a
centralelement, must more clearly indicate real intent and the force to back
it up,if it is to deter and if necessary pre-empt both state and
non-stateaggressors.

It would be futile to seek a NATO where
every member nation isrequired proportionately to replicate the same
military capability as eachother. This would not only lead to increasing
duplication anddisorganization. It would also place undue burdens on the
smaller members.What we need to seek is a NATO where each member contributes
within itsmeans relevant and deployable capabilities, thereby creating a
NATO ofskills and breadth, a NATO that can credibly be seen as an
efficientmilitary organisation with the flexibility to respond effectively
to threatsand aggressions from whatever quarter. While the larger nations
mustcontribute across a wider range of capabilities, smaller nations
willspecialise so they can play a real part. In this way NATO could continue
andstrengthen its role.

The key question is as to whether NATO
in its role and functions cancontinue to be based, however loosely on the
principles and legaldefinitions of self-defence. Already over these last
years it has operatedout of area. In Afghanistan two of its members, namely
the US and the UK,invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter to pray self-defence
as thejustification of war in Afghanistan. The growing and inevitable
doctrine ofpre-emption, upon which I have spoken on other occasions, if it
is to becomepart of the role of NATO, will require ‘out-of-area'
capabilities that willextend beyond the conventional containment and
deterrence capabilities ofthe past. Search and destroy, direct military
intervention to restore humanrights and the rule of law, peace-making and
peace-keeping are all becomingcentral parts of the role which NATO
increasingly has to play if it is toretain its relevance.

The
consequences of this are already becoming clear. There needs to beclearer
understanding of the legal authority under international law formilitary
intervention. Nato's relationships with the United Nations - aboutwhich more
later – and with the UN Charter need to be clarified. The UN hasonly ever
approved two conflicts in its entire history, Korea and the FirstGulf War.
How often can we expect Nato to act without explicit UN authority,as we did
in Kosovo?

In a world of global threats, what is the meaning of the
term‘out-of-area'? NATO already accepts invitations to intervene in
apeace-making role by the UN ‘out of area'. Are there limits? For
instance,NATO could be asked by the UN to intervene, say, in
Africa.

For Nato to act as one in an international crisis, there
also needs tobe a shared assessment of threats. That was clearly lacking
before therecent war in Iraq. Alternatively, suggestions have been made that
a renewedand strengthened NATO should divide into two tiers. It is not clear
whetherthese should be a division of function or of area. The idea of one
set offunctions, those of direct intervention, for the US and another, those
ofnation building and peacekeeping, for the rest, tends to destroy
theessential cohesion of NATO where combined action creates the
dynamic.Division of area might be considered, although it would be
unrealistic forthe European end of NATO to consider major military
intervention and actionout of area without the assistance and involvement of
the US except on themost limited scale. The UK would probably be most able
to undertake suchaction, but unless the circumstances were exceptional we
would prefer USinvolvement. Or maybe Nato will become a military alliance,
based uponcommon values, from which coalitions of the willing can be
drawn.

The Government talks about the importance of sustaining NATO
as the"superior alliance". There are fears that the direction being pursued
by theEU, in particular through the new draft constitution, fails to
guarantee thesupremacy of NATO. This will undermine and eventually fatally
debilitate anddestroy NATO. The developing autonomy of the ESDP has already
destabilisedNATO. The UK Government attacked the recent Brussels mini-summit
forundermining NATO, but these countries in turn cited the ESDP as
theauthority and agenda for that meeting. Under the Constitution this will
beexacerbated. This must be reversed.

Due to the rise in
anti-Americanism in a number of European states,some in the US government
have begun to re-examine the role of thetrans-Atlantic partnership. It is
hard to blame them. If we believe, as Ido, in preserving and strengthening
NATO, then we have an urgent task topersuade our American colleagues that
primacy of NATO in Europe is vital fortheir national security too. We need
to show them that their substantialinvestment in European defence is a
prerequisite of global stability andpeace, and that on the newer front of
proactive preemption their positionboth physically and psychologically will
be stronger with NATO than withoutit. NATO however will have to be seen to
be changing if we are to succeed.And it will need to have changed if it is
to have the relevance I seek forit in the future.

Lastly there
is the United Nations. Of the injured institutions thisis probably the most
difficult to find clearly pictured in the crystal ball.Do we need the UN?
Can an institution developed in a bi-polar world be maderelevant to a
uni-polar or multi-polar world? My answer to the firstquestion is yes from
which it follows that my answer to the second questionis that a way to
recreate its relevance must be found. The US and we need toconsider how such
relevance can sit easily alongside the US aim ofinternational primacy as per
their National Security Strategy Document.

What is certain is that
it cannot continue as the powerlessinternational organisation it has now in
practice become. If it is to playan important role in international affairs
in the 21st century, it mustredefine its role. It must work with the grain
of events and developmentsrather than against them. At a humanitarian level
the UN has effectiveagencies such as the World Food Programme, the UNHCR,
and UNRWA and so on.In terms of Health and Education it contributes valuably
and constructivelyto a better world. While we still need to challenge the
detailedeffectiveness of some these, they fulfil a vital role. Nor does it
helppresiding over a system that can put Colonel Gadaffi of Libya in the
chairof the UN Human Right Commission, or Iraq in the lead on disarmament!
Theseidiocies undermine credibility, and measures need to be taken to avoid
themhappening in the future.

The question of the UN's future
role remains. Should it simply becomea glorified humanitarian agency and how
would that help it further its goalof establishing ‘international peace and
security'? I believe it has reacheda crossroads. It has, and we as part of
it have, to decide whether just tostrengthen its limited peacekeeping
functions, or deliberately make a stepchange and to develop a peacemaking
role with all that that would entail.The UN is based on its sovereign nation
states. If it were to go down thisroad, it would have to work out how it
would deliver its humanitarian,peacekeeping and peacemaking roles
effectively in a world increasinglyshaped by non-state actors.

Then there is the matter of the Security Council. Have the events ofthe last
few months fatally undermined the concept of the Security Councilor simply
its reputation in Washington DC? What we know is that when thequestion was
asked of it in relation to action with Iraq it split and wasunable to
produce an answer.

A Security Council that under pressure becomes
gridlocked is an answerto nothing. If the UN is to have a relevant and
influential role then itneeds a Security Council that has clout, that does
not become hidebound, andthat reflects actual power within the
world.

I believe that we need urgently to reform the criteria for
membershipof the Security Council. The Government's pathetic response of
simplyincreasing the membership by ten, five permanent without veto and five
newrotational solves nothing and confuses everything.

We need
to re-examine the criteria for membership. Should there notthen be criteria
for membership based on some formula of population, GDP,military capability
and political stability? Should there be a firm rulethat the SC should
proceed by consensus rather than majority vote, and thatany minority or
individual member dissenting from the consensus must showjust reason for
suspending unanimity.

Selfish commercial reasons should not be
enough. Failure to agreeshould not make internationally illegal any
unilateral or bilateral actionwithout some further process of declarator as
to illegality and the reasonfor it. The loose concept of the 'unreasonable'
veto must be nailed.

If the principle of pre-emption - whether
military, economic orpolitical - is adopted, there would then need to be
some means to supportdecisions and resolutions duly taken. This would entail
a step change in therather supine and ineffective way in which the UN
currently backs up its ownresolutions.

If this route is taken,
there would need to be urgent action toestablish the authority vested in
such forces and the basis upon which theycould be recruited and from where?
The UN would have to graduate to a realforce to be reckoned with, not just
keeping the peace but helping to make itas well.

I firmly
believe that of all the three fractured institutions, the UNis the most
vulnerable. If it is to be rescued, it must change and changeradically. We
should lead that change.

I suppose as a most radical option I
should ask whether any of theinjured institutions is necessary. If this was
truly a unilateralist's worldthen the answer might be no. Whatever the
position it must be not in theircurrent form. For all the apparent unipolar
power of the US, I doubt whetherthis it truly is a unilateralist world.
Primacy rests not simply upon power,but also on acceptance. In the end the
US has to work with her allies ifdangerous isolation is not to ensue. The
Anglo-US relationship remains veryspecial. In the run up to the Iraq
conflict, and indeed since, UK influencewas undoubtedly central to
persuading America of the diplomatic andpolitical value of the ‘UN
route'.

What is indisputable is that these three institutions
cannot post-Iraqsimply be reformed in their old images or aspirations. The
world has changedand so must they. They must adapt to perform different
roles with differentstructures. They must still be able to provide
international legitimacy foractions taken.

They must also be
capable of evolving relations with the currentlyrelatively quiescent giants
of Russia and China. These will not remain quietforever, and the
institutions we rebuild now must be shaped to encompassthem rather than
alienate them.

I personally am allergic to ‘new world orders' the
broken axles ofwhich litter the trails of history. Nevertheless the three
institutionsinjured by the Iraq experience, can form the basis for new
internationalpartnerships and cooperation. They need to be restyled so that
they can worktogether, each secure within its own role, none pulling rank on
another, andall distinct. They can form a platform of stability that can be
enlarged andmatched by other institutions and partnerships in other parts of
the world.But only if they are reshaped to meet the challenges of the
future, not thethreats of fifty years ago.

None of them are
worth preserving for their history, only for theirpotential future
contributions. No one, least of all me, is advocating aHobbesian world where
might alone is right, but we live in a world wheremight must at least be
recognised and harnessed.

Iraq awoke the world to the weaknesses
and imperfections of theinstitutions upon which with complacency the
international community had fortoo long put store. Their credibility was
exposed by Iraq for the sham ithad increasingly become.

Tonight
I have offered one set of options for a way forward. There maywell be
others. What is certain is that they cannot go on as they are. Theymust
change, and we can and must lead the drive for that change.

The
article in The Independent of 11th July, 2003 states that Mr. Mbeki andMr.
Bush are now:

"absolutely of one mind about the urgent need to address
the political andeconomic changes of Zimbabwe."

Another interesting
perception is:

"Bush has agreed to follow Mbeki's lead on Zimbabwe, in
return promised thegenerous reconstruction package for Zimbabwe's recovery
in the post-Mugabeera."

This raises a few issues for Mr. Mbeki to be
held accountable for:1. Urgent - According to the article, the President
will stand down inDecember, and then an election is to held in
March.*This amounts to another eight months at least that the people of
Zimbabwewill have to suffer.2. Reconstruction - this word is the
opposite of destruction.*This sounds like a final admission that Mr. Mbeki
is now endorsing anothereight months of destruction, and oppression. At the
same time he knows fullwell that the United States of America, whose
financial muscle has beenbuilt on Secure Title is going to pick up the tab
on this humanitarianexperiment - is he telling the world and the Zimbabwean
people, that hepersonally has set the timetable for this experiment which is
not entirelydissimilar to one that was tried in Germany on the Jewish
Community? Arethe results not quite what the scientist has set is heart to
prove justyet, requiring a little more time? When will he start the same
experimentin his own country rather than look at the results of the ones
carried outin Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe, and even Malawi over the last
fortyyears?

There has been debate amongst civic society of a "Truth
and JusticeCommission" in Zimbabwe once a responsible and legitimate
Government comesinto being. South Africa went on a different road with its
"truth andreconciliation commission" and I believe there will be a price to
be paidfor not incorporating the law and justice into that
commission.

Zimbabwe has run along the road of impunity for far too
long. Its variousleaders have said, "let's forget about the law and what
the truth of thematter is and meting out justice - we will rather look to
the future! What benefit to the future is there in opening old wounds?"
And so in 1975the indemnity law, excusing all past and future atrocities
committed byGovernment officials, was passed. In the transitional
government LordSoames passed another indemnity statute pardoning all
atrocities from allsides that took place in the "liberation" war. In 1990
clemency order 1pardoned all offences that took place in the genocide of the
Gukuruhundiand in 2000 another clemency order pardoned perpetrators of
politicalviolence in the parliamentary election. We await a further
clemency orderto pardon the political violence that took place in the
presidentialelection of 2002.

Only when all Zimbabweans realise that
they have to deal with the past (andthe present!) will the future be secured
to our children and ourselves. Thetime for papering over the gaping cracks
in our very foundations andbuilding up on top are surely now over. Such
building is foolish anddoomed to failure. If those old festering wounds are
not dealt with, theywill corrupt the body of Zimbabwe again in the future
and we will gothrough the shattering experiences that have torn the country
apart sooften once again. So how do we deal with the past?

THE
TRUTH: The first part is to establish the objective truth of what hastaken
place in the past. This is a big exercise but much work has alreadybeen
done and continues to be done in this regard. It is imperative thatall
incidents of violence, corruption, torture, state sponsored theft andthe
like get properly documented. Everybody needs to play his or her partin
this. A detailed personal diary is a start. Police RRB numbers,doctors'
certificates, death certificates, reports to human rightsorganisations and
others are critical. The truth has to be verifiable totackle the next part
of dealing with the past. Ultimately we cannot doanything without "The
Truth."

THE LAW: The rights and the wrongs of what is established must be
dealtwith through the law. The law in essence is about what is right and
wrong.The law was laid down and has changed little since 1444 B.C.
(orthereabouts) when it was given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai.
This"Mosaic Law" is the foundation or constitution on which roman Dutch law
andmost of the world's legal systems and indeed societies are based.
Withoutthe law that sets out what is right and wrong humanity founders on
therocks of immorality and evil. When we call for the law to take its
coursein Zimbabwe therefore, we call for what God has set out for us to be
upheldand policed. We have seen various perversions of the law being put
intoour statutes in Zimbabwe. These need to be changed and the rule of
lawneeds to be re-established before a future can be built.

JUSTICE:
It is imperative that once the truth is established and the law isallowed to
take its course justice is meted out through a justice systemthat has
integrity and independence. For over three centuries after thelaw was given
to Moses and Israel entered the Promised Land Israel ruled by"the judges"
not "the kings". The book of Judges provides many examples ofthe principle
that obedience to the law brings peace, whereas disobediencemeans oppression
and death. The law in itself was not enough. It requiredleaders with
integrity who were willing to stand up for the law and makesure that justice
took its course. Indemnity and clemency laws run contrato justice and in
actual fact promote further lawlessness and injustice inthe future. What
Zimbabwe needs more than anything at this time is leaderswith integrity and
moral fortitude who are willing to stand up for justiceand for God.
Zimbabwean leaders (and each one of us is a leader insomething) need to
grasp this nettle however difficult, or dangerous itmight appear and ensure
that they hang on to it, pursue it and don't letgo. Until that happens
Zimbabwe remains doomed. Skirting the issue andnot dealing with it would be
a horrendous mistake. I for one am hugelyencouraged that civic society is
looking at a truth and justice commission.However unsavoury it might appear,
Zimbabweans have to confront withdetermination their past if they are to
have a future brighter than today.

Once again I read your Jag Forum letter with
trepidation. Open Letter Forumno 113 may as well be open war on CFU no 113.
Aside from Simon's very oldletter which he wrote late 2002 but which still
has great relevance, thetwo other writers were just beating
CFU.

Willie Robertson does not have the right to write a letter on behalf
ofMartin Olds. The man I knew was a man of principle who would have taken
hisdisagreement to the person concerned and would have sorted it out away
fromthe public eye. Martin Olds would, in my opinion, not have behaved in
themanner that Willie has done. In fact, I suspect that Martin would have
gothold of Willie by now and suggested he found some sort of
constructiveemployment...perhaps even to try and lead by example.

I
wonder if it isn't time for Ben Freeth to grow up and become aconstructive
member of our society. We need to start rebuilding our lives.If he believes
that CFU is past its sell by date, well then get anotherorganisation going
to meet the needs of our people but for heavens sake,don't waste his energy
on fighting an organisation that he does not believein. Or perhaps, if he is
honest with himself, he is piqued by the fact thatthey asked him to resign
after he made such a spectacle of himself by goingto press on a
employer/employee issue instead of going to his employer tosort it
out.

We all need to move on.....whether that is to rebuild our farming
industry,go elsewhere, go into another form of employment...or whatever. But
to stayin the same old groove, constantly complaining about a single issue,
beginseventually to irritate.

Willie and Ben, please look to the
rising sun, see the good in people,great courage and integrity...and be
proud to be Zimbabwean Please use yourboundless energy to help us move
forward so that we can meet the challengesto come ....and
succeed.

Thank you for your contribution.
As you well know Justice for Agriculturehas always valued your contribution
and continues to. The very idea ofhaving an Open Letters Forum emanated from
yourself, and it is mostcomforting for many to see "The Return of the
Oracle" after what seems tohave been a bit of a lull.

In this
instance I feel that I must defer to Voltaire:"I disapprove of what you say,
but I will defend to the death your right tosay it."

This should
continue to be the ethos of this forum, and naturally we lookforward to some
contributions from of the leadership of the CFU, but Ireally do admire the
way in which you have defended them, and I lookforward to you defending them
further - until such time as they are bigenough to defend themselves
properly.

I enjoyed Mrs Simon's letter regarding the Open Letter
Forum No. 113 andfeel it is important to respond.

Openness is a
founding principle of JAG in order to go some way in creatingan open
society. The momentum behind "people power" is created by peopleputting
fear aside and openly stating on the one hand what they believe inand on the
other what they do not believe in. The first part is theconstructive side
and the second part is the dissenting side. No opendemocratic society can
function without the balance of constructive anddissenting voices. The
collapse of communist Russia and the rest of theEastern Bloc came about
through students initially and then eventually therest of society saying,
"We will live out our lives as though we lived inthe open society that we
believe in." Eventually that open society cameinto being because enough
people lived it out and "glasnost openness"passed into the English language
(and I hope eventually the Zimbabwean onetoo).

My dissenting voice as
a result of a UN report quoting a CFU economist assaying, "The agricultural
sector is operating at only 30% of capacitybecause the ZESA authority is
unable to meet power demands" was, I believe,valid. Mrs Simon's dissenting
voice about me pointing out that the lack ofproduction was in fact due to
evictions by the State I do not believe wasvalid (unless of course she
concurs with the CFU economist).

If we do not openly challenge what is
wrong and openly stand up for what isright (even at the risk of becoming
unpopular) we will never in Jean Simon's words "become a constructive member
of our society." It is just thissyndrome of letting things go by that has
left Liberia, 156 years afterindependence, with no schools, no electricity,
no roads, no functioningfarms, no law and order and no future for the vast
majority of
Liberianpeople.

Funnily enough John
Worswick often uses the word Piggyback when he suggestsa LEGAL method of a
displaced farmer using a Test Case as means of seekingLEGAL
PROTECTION.

Could you perhaps use this forum to faithfully enunciate your
commitment tousing the LEGAL ROUTE which I understand to be the Case brought
byMatabeleland CFU, and the Quinnell Case to engender confidence in
yourcattle producers and ex-cattle producers alike?

ZIMBABWE’S stand-off
with the United States of America (USA) andBritain surfaced in another form
after Harare reassigned tourism attachesthat were to represent the country
in these markets.

Stung by Britain and America’s attacks on its
human rights record andthe alleged lack of democracy, the government
overturned the assignments andopted for more friendly destinations.
The three tourism attaches, who were engaged by the Zimbabwe
TourismAuthority (ZTA) in the third quarter of last year, will now
representZimbabwe in China, France and South Africa after almost a year of
waiting. Givemore Chidzidzi, ZTA’s marketing and communications
director,confirmed the new destinations. Chidzidzi said: “We (ZTA)
have managed to go through most of thefactors which were delaying us. The
way is now clear and we expect them(attaches) to have left the country by
the end of this month.” Sources told The Financial Gazette this week
that the ZTA overturnedthe previous assignments after being told that the
project faced certainfailure had they insisted on the original
destinations. “There was no way the ZTA could have succeeded given the
oppositionthat was coming from top politicians,” said the source.
Godfrey Pasipanodya, formerly the marketing director for the RainbowTourism
Group, will represent Zimbabwe in France. Taka Munyenyiwa, a former
Zimsun Leisure employee, has been secondedto China while Ndaipanei Mukwena,
who was a lecturer at Midlands StateUniversity, has been seconded to South
Africa. Chidzidzi said the ZTA has not completely abandoned
traditionalmarkets. “ZTA is diversifying a bit wider. We still have
offices in the UK andGermany and operations are still going on,” he
said. The attaches who were supposed to leave the country in September
lastyear were delayed by red tape and bureaucratic bungling between ZTA and
thePublic Service Commission. China, which played a crucial role in
the war that brought Zimbabwe’sindependence in 1980, has over the past two
years become the target ofZimbabwe’s investment drive. Several
companies including Fok Hing International, a clothing companyand Sino,
which is into cement manufacturing, have already invested millionsof dollars
in Zimbabwe. A number of delegations from China have been visiting
Zimbabwe topursue investment opportunities. Chidzidzi said China
was a big market for Zimbabwe with lots ofpotential. The World Tourist
Organisation predicted that most of the tourismtraffic in the next decade
would be coming from China. France has also maintained a soft approach
on Zimbabwe despitepressure from the US and other European
countries. South Africa has remained Zimbabwe’s major trading partner
and a keybroker in talks to end the political impasse between the ruling
ZANU PF andthe Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Chidzidzi
said: “While the rest of the world has been going down intourism arrivals,
South Africa has been doing quite well. France is a newemerging market,
which is looking for new and exciting destinations.” Of late, the
government has been placing more emphasis on new marketsafter failing to
spruce up its image in traditional ones. Tourism arrivals from
traditional markets such as the US, Britain andGermany have dropped
drastically because of the negative publicity thecountry is receiving from
the international community.

ZIMBABWEANS could have been asking for too much if they expectedAfrican
leaders to deal with President Robert Mugabe’s government at lastweek’s
African Union (AU) summit, analysts said this week.

Hopes were high
in the run-up to last week’s second AU summit inMaputo that African leaders
were going to try and find solutions to thegrowing crises in
Zimbabwe. The hopes were dashed when it emerged that the leaders not
onlydecided to keep the country off the summit agenda, but expressed
confidencein Mugabe’s leadership by electing him the AU vice chairman
responsible forsouthern Africa. “There was no reason to expect
African leaders to scrutinise eachother because most of them know that they
have some skeletons in theirclosets,” one delegate at the summit
said. “You can only expect these leaders to support each other instead
ofcriticising each other,” added the delegate as the leaders moved on with
theAU business as if it was a continuation of the 39-year old Organisation
ofAfrican Unity (OAU) which it replaced last July. Although the AU
was founded on high sounding promises of goodgovernance, human rights, rule
of law and such other terms, nothing seemedto really have changed as the
union is still dominated by the same oldleaders who made sure the OAU left
no legacy worth mentioning today. “Nothing has changed regarding
African leaders. They are the same oldpeople,” said University of Zimbabwe
lecturer Lovemore Madhuku. “You need to look at the readiness with
which they re-admittedMadagascar to see if they mean what they say, so for
Zimbabweans to expectthese same leaders to help them was expecting too
much,” Madhuku said. “African leaders simply do not have the capacity
to solve problems inmember countries, and it is up to Zimbabweans to find
their own solution.” Heneri Dzinotyiwei, chairman of Zimbabwe
Integrated Programme andpolitical commentator, said there are much more
serious problems bedevellingthe continent such that it is not surprising
that Zimbabwe was not evendiscussed. “One should understand that at
continental level, there are many moreserious problems that the leaders need
to solve, and if they had started offby discussing the Zimbabwean issue,
they would not get anywhere,”Dzinotyiwei said. He said from a
partisan point of view, some people can expressdisappointment in the way
African leaders are treating the Zimbabweancrisis, but the truth is that the
situation on other parts of the continentneed much more urgent
attention. “It is difficult to see how African leaders … with the same
interestsof staying in power, will raise yellow or red cards to one another
on behalfof the citizenries of others,” said Joseph Diescho in a paper
entitledUnderstanding The New Partnership for Africa’s Development
(NEPAD). “In other words, is the (AU) Implementation Committee, or the
PeerReview Committee, the body to receive bounced cheques and act at the
sametime as the credit bureau with the power to blacklist their peers? Who
willsubmit a bounced cheque and on whose behalf?” Diescho asked.
NEPAD, which is now being integrated into the formal structure of theAU,
puts emphasis on good governance, rule of law and human rights andMugabe,
along with other African leaders whose democratic credentials aresuspect,
are closely involved in the process. The leaders, however, are keen
only to implement those sections ofNEPAD that they are comfortable with,
leaving out such components as thePeer Review Mechanism (PRM), which would
put AU member states’ governancestyles under scrutiny. Most leaders argue
that NEPAD had no business dealingwith political, security and conflict
resolution issues on the continent. “I shall, with due respect, consign
the Peer Review Mechanism to thedustbin of history as a sham. I see it as a
misleading new name for the old,discredited structural adjustment fiasco,”
Namibian Prime Minister Theo-BenGurirab recently said, speaking for a number
of hardline African leaders whohave dismissed NEPAD as a foreign
idea. “Neo-colonialism—which is what the PRM is —is a killer disease:
wemust run away from it.” Diescho, however, said it was
understandable that NEPAD emphasisedgood governance and the rule of law and
democracy in a way that the AUitself would be too vague about.
“This is so because the malaise in Africa today has been brought aboutby
African leaders who have, like their colonial masters, plundered andpillaged
Africa for their own personal enrichment and aggrandisement,” hesaid. “They
are part of the problem and therefore their role in finding thesolution must
be limited.” In the speech he delivered at the Maputo summit, United
Nationssecretary-general Kofi Annan pleaded with the African leaders to
putdemocratic transformation high on their agenda. “Democracy means
more than holding elections. It requires respect forthe rule of law, even by
the government and the party in power. It requiresviable institutions to
promote respect for all human rights of our people,including minorities,”
Annan said.

SOUTH
African President Thabo Mbeki this week came in for flak as adishonest
broker, with political commentators accusing him of having aguarded motive
in his handling of the country’s worsening economic andpolitical
crisis.

They decried the fact that American President George W Bush
whose highprofile visit to Africa last week “signified nothing” had been
swayed byMbeki’s arguments and subsequently bought into the South African
leader’sscheme. Eliphas Mukonowe-shuro, a political analyst and
adviser to oppositionMovement for Democratic Change (MDC) president Morgan
Tsvangirai, said Mbekiwas very much aware of the gravity of Zimbabwe’s
problems. Mukonoweshuro said Mbeki may be deliberately downplaying the
crisis inZimbabwe in order to hasten the country’s economic collapse and
give SouthAfrica an unrivalled economic edge in the region.
Besides, Mbeki was intent to capture Zimbabwe’s skilled labour force,likely
to take flight from the country because of poor
economicfundamentals. “His stance is not based on principles,” said
Mukonoweshuro. “Mbekishould realise that if it were not for regional and
international pressure,South Africa would not have done away with the
apartheid regime. He wouldstill be in exile if that pressure was not applied
to bring democracy toSouth Africa.” Mukonoweshuro added bluntly:
“If our economy collapses, we, asevidenced by what is currently happening,
will see our skilled labourmigrate to South Africa and serve their interests
at no cost to them.Zimbabwe’s losses are South Africa’s gains.”
Mukonoweshuro said a strong Zimbabwean economy would be an impedimentto a
drive by South African business to penetrate into regional markets.
Zimbabwe, which intervened in the Democratic Republic of the Congo(DRC) and
Mozambique to ostensibly rescue the two countries from civilrebellion, was
overtaken by South Africa in the penetration of DRC andMozambican markets
once war stopped in the two countries. Mukonoweshuro asked: “What is
South Africa doing in the DRC andBurundi and why does Mbeki want to send
troops to Liberia if he believes inthe theory of quiet diplomacy? It just
shows diplomatic naiveté on his part.” Lovemore Madhuku, a
constitutional law expert and University ofZimbabwe lecturer,
agreed. “How is Mbeki going to explain that contradiction?” Madhuku
asked. Critics said Mbeki’s tactics amounted to trashing the opposition
MDC. “Mbeki’s stance has exposed the MDC in that they had created
animpression that they were placing a lot of faith in the Bush visit,”
Madhukusaid. “If Zimbabweans are going to resolve their own problems then
one cannot determine the pace at which this would be done. Bush and Mbeki’s
stancereflects the interests of their two countries at the expense of
Zimbabwe.The Americans don’t want to antagonise the South Africans because
of theirtrade interests in that country.” Brian Kagoro, the
coordinator of Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition, saidMbeki must do everything in
his power to pressure for reform in the country,moreso a return to
dialogue. But critics also said that Tsvangirai had blundered by
underestimatingMbeki’s friendship to Zimbabwean President Robert
Mugabe. He banked too much on Mbeki to woo the American president to
oustMugabe or force a re-run of the disputed presidential election.
But this did not happen. Instead, Bush backed Mbeki’s strategy.
Mukonoweshuro added: “Like anywhere in the world where there isconflict, the
affected nation is expected to turn to regional andinternational leaders for
assistance. I don’t believe that anyone expectedBush to come and wave a
magic wand and bring things back to normal.” He said there was nothing
new in Mbeki’s statement as he has alwaysmaintained that a solution to the
Zimbabwean crisis lies with the Zimbabweanpeople. Castigating South
Africa for taking sides, Kagoro said: “The SouthAfricans have always doubted
the MDC’s capacity and credibility to run thecountry and they are persuaded
that the MDC is too linked to Western powers.As long as the balance of power
is in favour of ZANU PF, they will alwayssay ‘let them solve their own
problems’, but if there is a slight shift, forinstance during the last
stayaway, they rushed here and called for aresumption of dialogue.
“Their foreign minister is on record saying that there will be
nocondemnation of Mugabe’s government as long as the ANC is in power.
SouthAfrica’s leaders have repeatedly said there is no crisis in Zimbabwe.
Up tonow, South Africa has not condemned human rights abuses here,” Kagoro
said. “Both leaders maintained their positions for the call to the
return ofdemocracy in Zimbabwe. There are fruits to bear if there is a
speedysolution to this. Mbeki has a mutual responsibility to talk through
theZimbabwean problem. Although no ultimatum was issued, there is evidence
thatthe two leaders gave themselves a time frame in which Zimbabweans
shouldresolve the crisis.”

A STORM is brewing
between top government officials and settlers at afarm in Mashonaland East
after ZANU PF stalwarts besieged the farm tofacilitate occupation by
provincial party heavyweights.

The settlers, who moved onto the
farm in 2000, accused Goromonzi RuralDistrict Council chairman Oliver Juru
and a ZANU PF activist only identifiedas Nkatazo of conniving with the
district land distribution committee andsenior provincial officials to take
over Oribi Farm near Juru Growth Point. Lawrence Meda, the district
administrator for Goromonzi, was adamantthat the new farmers would be moved
from the farm, classified under the A2model scheme. “I am removing
them (settlers), but the only problem I have at themoment is that my trucks
do not have fuel, otherwise the evictions shouldhave started same time
ago. “They will be relocated to other areas that fall under the A1
Model,where they are supposed to continue with their farming activities,” he
said. ZANU PF heavyweights in Mashonaland East, who attended a meeting
tosolve the issue two ago, were at pains to put a human face to the
eviction,but met with stiff resistance from the settlers. David
Karimanzira, the governor for Mashonaland East, Finance MinisterHerbert
Murerwa, Member of Parliament for Murewa South Joel Biggie Matizaand
Mashonaland East provincial chairman Ray Kaukonde attended the meeting.
Other high ranking officials present at the meeting included thechairman for
Goromonzi Rural District Council and Chris Chingosho, theprovincial
administrator for Mashonaland East. “There was problem on that farm,
but we have resolved it. We should beseeing the settlers relocated within
days,” said Karimanzira. The settlers however, maintained that their
displacement was beingdone corruptly to safeguard the interest of a few
powerful politicians. “This is corruption at its worst. We have been
here since 2000 andhave invested a lot here. Now they want to evict us
saying we werewrongfully allocated this land. “What do they expect
us to do? I wonder whether President Mugabe isaware of what is going on.
They want to give the land to senior ZANU PFofficials at our expense, but
they will meet with more than what theybargained for,” said a settler who
declined to be named said. Meda, who refused to disclose the names of
the prospective new owners,said the government was reconciling resettlements
throughout the country byensuring that farmers are properly
settled. “The land district committee allocated Oribi Farm which falls
underthe A2 Model to settlers under the A1 Model. How this was done baffles
me. “But we have made great strides in resolving the issue and
peopleshould be moving out soon,” said a senior ZANU PF official who
declined tobe named. Oribi is part of the land measuring about 960
hectares compulsorilyacquired from Owen Patrick Conner, 69, who was evicted
in August last yearunder the controversial land reform. The land is
divided into two sections, namely Stockholm measuring 364hectares and Oribi,
596 hectares. Conner, 69, the former owner of the farm, said before
leaving theproperty he used to produce 1 400 tonnes of wheat, 540t of wheat
seed, 1000t of maize, 200t of potatoes, 540t of seed maize and boasted of
130 headof cattle for export. The Commercial Farmers’ Union said
about 98 percent of commercialfarms have been seized by the government under
the land grab exercise, whileonly 220 440 hectares of the 11.02 million
hectares under commercial farmingprior to the fast track system remains
unlisted for compulsory acquisition.

THE perennially
troubled Cold Storage Company Limited (CSC) couldcrawl back to viability if
managed by a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) puttogether by banks owed in
excess of $7 billion, The Financial Gazette canreveal.

An
accounting firm tasked to look into problems at the meat processingconcern
has advised government to hand-over CSC’s operations to creditors inthe
absence of the take-over of its entire debt. Camelsa Chartered
Accountants headed by Reggie Saruchera noted thatthe accumulation of the
parastatal’s debt from just above $700 million a fewyears back to over $7
billion showed that the government had run out ofideas on the
issue. Government, which is the sole shareholder in the meat
processingconcern, could have inherited CSC’s debt at the time it was
commercialised. It appears the only way out would be to enable banks
set up the SPVthat would run the CSC board and management until such a time
theinstitution can stand on its own. Loans advanced by the banks
would also cease to earn interest. CSC, which requires at least $33
billion inside 24 months to financefarmers in rebuilding the depleted
national herd, would repay the debt fromfees generated from leasing its
ranches, among other things. Without that, there is clear and present
danger that financialinstitutions could proceed to place the company under
liquidation and haveits assets auctioned. A number of banks already
have judgements on CSC debts in their favourand such rulings constitute a
major threat to the parastatal’s survival. CSC acting chief executive
officer, Ngoni Chinogaramombe confirmedthat Camelsa had completed its
mandate, but refused to disclose its findingsand recommendations.
Chinogaramombe insisted that the questions should be put in writing.
He, however, could not respond to questions e-mailed to his office atthe
time of going to press. Five banks, namely Genesis Investment Bank, the
Jewel Bank, KingdomBank, Time Bank and Trust Bank have already made an offer
to the CSC boardchaired by Dairibord Zimbabwe Limited chief executive
officer, AnthonyMandiwanza whose details are being kept under
wraps. The chartered accounting firm noted that CSC had a lot of
potential toreturn to profitability, but could go under if nothing is done
to rescue theentity. About $9 billion is required to make CSC
viable. CSC requires 5 830cattle for slaughter that would cost about $2.3
billion. It also needs feedstock at its ranches to feed 7 500 beasts at
a costof about $5.2 billion. Another $400 million would be required in
cattlestock-feed, while $850 million should be spent in payments to
outstandingcreditors. CSC would also need to hunt for a substantive
chief executive officersoon and to dispose of idle assets with the proceeds
going towards debtpayment and meeting its working capital
requirements. Sources said the recommendation had been submitted to the
Ministry ofLands and Agriculture for consideration. “A meeting
would be convened soon between the ministry and the CSCboard to discuss
Camelsa’s report,” a source said. Meanwhile, the report also noted that
CSC has repossessed 15 of the 30franchises operating the Meat Pride Brand
for failing to meet theircontractual obligations. Six franchises in
Gweru, Harare, Mutare and Masvingo are also underdispute concerning
ownership of assets supplied by CSC. The disputes arecurrently going through
arbitration. The Meat Pride outlets, which were financed by Trust Bank,
weregoverned by an arrangement where holders of the agreements would
receivesupplies from the parastatal. It was also agreed that the
meat processing concern would collect 80percent of the franchises’
sales. It then turned out that the 20 percent collected by the
franchiseowners was not enough, a situation that was worsened by CSC’s
failure tosupply adequate meat to the franchises. CSC has agreed to
pay $21 million to franchise holders after nettingcounter claims between
itself and other parties involved.

THE
country’s premier private health institution, Avenues Clinic, isreportedly
on the brink of closing shop after failing to containsky-rocketing overheads
and secure essential drugs at a time when thecountry’s health delivery
system is threatened with collapse.

“Let’s face facts,” Avenues
Clinic’s managing director Benny Dedasaid. “We are failing to meet the cost
structure of medical provisions andthe pressure of costs continues to rise
making it very difficult for us tooperate as most of our products are
imported. “To be honest with you, I am losing senior staff members.
Even theprincipal matron has left for greener pastures. “In the
past we have had a massive exodus of nurses because of thecurrent economic
hardships,” a dejected Deda said. “What is happening is that nurses are
being interviewed over the phoneand offered jobs for better pay.
“Our skilled manpower is being absorbed abroad — in the UnitedKingdom,
Australia and other countries. We are in dire straits.” Analyst Eric
Bloch yesterday said the closure of the clinic wouldmotivate medial staff in
other health institutions to leave the country. “The brain drain would
be severe,” Bloch said. “The biggest indicationis that it is going to
motivate more people to leave the country to seekmedical attention elsewhere
or persuade nurses and doctors to work outsidethe country. “It will
also create further unemployment which is already at 70percent.”
The sad news comes on the backdrop of a strike by the clinics’ staffwhich
kicked off on Tuesday. The workers at the the $10 billion institution,whose
strike has put the lives of many patients in danger, are demanding asalary
increment of about 120 percent. But management at the clinic which has
a holding capacity of 180patients and a staff complement of 500 workers was
adamant that the demandwas not feasible. Some patients were
transferred to a sister clinic, West-End Clinic-for urgent medical attention
as the skeleton staff — mostly senior staff —failed to cope. So bad was the
situation that one nurse was attending to anaverage of 10 patients thereby
reducing the quality of care needed by thesick. Those on strike
could be seen milling around the clinic’s premises,when the Financial
Gazette crew arrived. An angry member of the workers committee who
spoke on condition ofanonymity said: “We have resolved not to go back to
work until Deda and histeam go. “They are mis-managing things here.
We told him we need a salaryincrement of 120 percent on a sliding scale
because of the continuousescalation of prices of basic commodities, but he
said he would give us only40 percent across the board. “He says
there is no money, but he recently bought about three luxurycars for senior
staff.” Deda replied: “We offered the workers a 40 percent increment
takinginto consideration our costs against revenue, but they refused.
Theyinsisted on 120 percent, but I can’t afford that. “Most of our
revenue is derived from donors and medical aid societies,but we have been
experiencing problems simply because the money is notcoming in. Because of
the strike we have been forced to transfer somepatients to West-End Clinic,
but I am happy to say those in the intensivecare unit are still in good
hands and their lives not in danger. No one hasbeen compromised.”
Deda said he had since referred the matter to the Ministry of PublicService
Labour and Social Welfare for arbitration. Meanwhile, nurses at
Parirenyatwa and Harare hospitals have resolvedto go on strike next week if
the government fails to address their salarygrievances.

PRESIDENT Thabo Mbeki’s insistence that stalled
talks between ZANU PFand the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) were now
back on track couldhave seen a little sunshine breaking through the dark
clouds hovering overZimbabwe and provoked the rarest of emotions — hope, in
a countryprecariously hanging on to an eggshell-thin veneer of
stability.

But to cap a series of startling events, the country’s
intransigentfeuding political parties moved quickly to pour cold water on
Mbeki’sclaims. This sparked off an orgy of speculation about the
country’s politicalfuture as people tried to figure out what’s going
on. Could President Mbeki have lied? Was the South African president
justtrying to appease President George Bush who is increasingly showing a
flushof impatience with President Mugabe who seems to have decided on a
distantdeparture date? Highly unlikely. Mbeki is an extraordinary
and cautious politician who is unlikely tostir up such controversy without
knowing where it would all end. No doubt,we have said it before and we will
say it again, the Zimbabwean situation isone that demands delicate arbitrage
but because of his position, PresidentMbeki has both the diplomatic and
economic clout to assume theresponsibility and ensure a deeper rapprochement
between the MDC and ZANUPF. It is true that views on the way
forward might be understandablystarkly divided but there is no doubt that
there is a national, regional andinternational consensus on the need to
expedite negotiations to break thepolitical impasse which is spooking
Zimbabwe today. This is why we do notunderstand the current confusion over a
negotiated settlement. Much as we acknowledge that politicians the
world over have themistaken belief that the less people know the better,
Zimbabweans have aright to know exactly what is going on. By
choosing to be politicians these people should know that they havechosen to
get their feet wet and their hands dirty for the sake of this oncegreat
nation, now reduced to an economic basket case — they are supposed tobe
accountable to the citizens of this country. The issue concerning
talksshould not be decided in some dark room at Harvest House or the ZANU
PFheadquarters. Zimbabweans have to be kept in the loop insofar as this
issueis concerned. President Mbeki’s pronouncements and the
subsequent denials from bothZANU PF and the MDC underline why it is said
sometimes we learn more fromwatching politicians than listening to
them. We would like to point out however that whatever the case, the
countryis right at the deep end and the two parties should seriously
consider goingback to the negotiating table to rid the country of its ills.
Even now, itis still possible to strike an eleventh hour understanding. But
they have tobe sincere. ZANU PF, under whose stewardship the
economy is teetering on the vergeof collapse, should realise that it is
perfectly right to be proud of thepast, especially the one it has, but it is
wrong and detrimental to progressto live in the past. The MDC, whose
approach to the country’s politicalcrisis lacks leadership depth and overall
vision to guide the nation, shouldexhibit maturity and stop behaving like
spoilt brats.

Weeks after the hype and fever that gripped the
nation during theweek-long “final push” mass stayaways and proposed marches
to State House,an uneasy truce seems to have settled over the whole
country.

The state responded by throwing Morgan Tsvangirai in jail
for exactlytwo weeks, “in filthy prison conditions in an overcrowded cell at
HarareRemand Prison.” The MDC believes that the two week incarceration only
servedto strengthen the people’s resolve to tackle the crisis of legitimacy
inZimbabwe. Indeed everyone had expectations that reflected their
particularfeelings and opinions regarding the MDC led mass action.
Most workers identified with the anti-government protests as theironly way
to hit back at a regime that has depleted their basic earnings. Atthe same
time our inflation trots to the record 500 percent mark by the endof this
year, just as our economic analysts have been predicting for a longtime,
meaning that our poor worker will have to bear the brunt of all
priceincreases. Our youths are painfully beginning to realise and
understand that theruling party is a conspiracy of old men and party
stalwarts that have noplans of releasing their deathgrip on this
country. They are realising that it is a party of die-hard liberation
warheroes that see all young people, particularly those born after the war
ofliberation, as a bastardised generation: ungrateful, euro-centric
andunpatriotic, worse still if they are educated and live in the urban
areas. Students also identified with the mass action because the
government,through the unrepentant ruling party has alienated them as is
exemplified bythe infamous and dubious national youth policy. A
national youth policy that is known to be partisan and whose aim isto put
all students and youths into a straitjacket of unquestioning,
partyworshipping ‘yes men’ and bootlickers of the state. A policy that is
meantto churn out, in factory style, thousands of brainwashed zombies fed on
adiet of lies and distorted history. Our women have been raped,
abused, dehumanised. They are faced withthe unenviable task of becoming
defacto breadwinners, in the place of theirjobless husbands, as they sell
vegetables and do cross border trading underan increasingly harsh economic
environment. The “final push” for thempresented a golden opportunity to
reclaim their respectability as mothers ina country that has gone to the
dogs. In our teeming high density suburbs, overwhelmed by
uncollectedgarbage and refuse, characterised by constant electricity and
water cuts,emotions were running high that at last Mugabe’s regime would be
tested forthe last time with a resounding flourish. It is true that
contact and dialogue is one way of solving thestalemate in our country, but
is it the only way ? In the broader fold of international politics
those who have thenecessary power to convince Mugabe that his time is up
have been strangelyvague about their discussions with the embattled
President. Both Presidents Thabo Mbeki and Olusegun Obasanjo have
allowedspeculation to prevail. People anxious for a resolution of the
currentcrisis in Zimbabwe, particularly the media, spin their own versions
ofproposed exit plans, succession plans, or even talks of a
transitionalgovernment to no avail. In the same vein the church has
tried without success to reach aconsensus between the two parties.
The Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town only got promises while our ownlocal
church leaders have been weakened by factions, one supporting ZANU PF’s
chaotic land reform and the other demonising it. Amid all this, AIDS is
devouring the bulk of our young generationfaster than they are being born,
unemployment is exploding. Our health,education and social infrastructure
has collapsed. Bulawayo, the nation’ssecond largest city, is reported to
have only one full time doctor. Bothdoctors and lawyers are fleeing this
country as fast as our inflation rateis rising. The people who bear
the brunt of all these economic ills are oftenreferred to as an amorphous,
invisible mass of individuals somewhere outthere, faraway from us.
Bread, in recent months has become a scarce basic commodity which nowhas the
unbelievable reputation of being sold at odd hours of the day, atodd places,
at odd times, and at very odd prices, just like fuel. Bread, cooking
oil, soup, fuel and other commodities are thriving onthe black market in a
fashion reminiscent of the liquor inhibition era inThe United States. The
inhibition years in America saw the birth ofbootlegging — the illegal
procurement and selling of liquor- alongside thegrowth of crime. It
was such a thriving black market that led to the birth of notoriouscriminals
such as Al Capone, the so-called god father of crime in America. As if
to quench the rising disillusionment against the ruling party,government
introduced commuter trains to ferry thousands of people fromtheir homes, as
if that would take care of their miseries. The trains,dubbed the “freedom
trains” are well-known features of everyday travellingin Harare and
Bulawayo. The fares are cheap, the travelling unbearable and in some
casesdangerous to the point of death. A few weeks ago one young man
on the Dzivarsekwa-Harare route diedafter he sustained serious injuries on
the train, in another case a womanand two men fell off the speeding train.
There are other unreported cases ofpeople who fall off these trains,
sometimes losing their lives, or a limb,others just faint in the overcrowded
trains. Members of the uniformed forces, who travel for free, are known
towantonly assault commuters for merely reading an opposition paper and
othervarious silly reasons. But against all odds, the camaraderie
and daring on the trains isalmost unmatched and presents a perfect microcosm
of life in Zimbabwe. Thecommuters are so frustrated and stretched to the
limits that they havenothing to lose and so they talk. They discuss
almost every topic under the sun: gossips, prostitution,rape, Aids, love and
one of the most exciting topics, soccer. Fierce debates on politics
rage in the trains, people talk, shouttrade insults, share joke, curse
beneath their breaths as they push andshove and struggle to breath.
Now the “freedom train” has set route on free derailing as evidencedby the
recent accident. Surely, which way is the “freedom train” coming our
way? This is life in Zimbabwe. lGivemore Nyanhi is the former
chairman of the Press Club at HararePolytechnic

This was in the
early 90s, after having detected the virus and littledid he know corruption
was going to spread like a wildfire. Then, Zimbabwewas still a good country
to live in with few such cases. Poor government policies, coupled with
political uncertainty haveplunged this country into chaos, reducing
Zimbabweans to paupers living wellbelow the poverty datum line.
This has created two classes — the rich and the poor. There is nomiddle
class anymore. The once promising nation is now full of thugs and
crooks. Corruptionis the order of the day. It’s sad that Africa,
with all its natural resources, cannot realiseits potential. It has had its
fair share of civil wars, diseases, and badgovernance, making it a fertile
place for corruption. People in government have specialised in dipping
their fingers innational coffers. This has mainly benefited their immediate
families andcronies. Some African dictators have become so rich as
to lend theirgovernments some money. Money from the International
Monetory Fund and the World Bank meantfor development purposes has been
channelled towards personal projects. In the case of Zimbabwe, Bretton
Woods institutions have severed tieswith us. They do not hate us.
We are just irresponsible. We are corrupt. It depends on who you know
to get government tenders. It depends onwho you ‘grease’ to get even a
hearse to take your beloved one on theirfinal journey. We are so corrupt we
cannot even respect the dead. Withdrawing money from the bank can be a
nightmare. After oiling abank official’s palms to get cash, you have a
supermaket chap to give a “cut” for the scarce basic commodities and you
also have the petrolattendant to give a few Zimkwachas to get fuel. The list
is endless. Recently, the government came up with a brilliant idea. We
have fuelproblems. We have to share the little that trickles in. It
was laudable to introduce coupons so commuter omnibus operatorscould get the
scarce commodity and improve on public transport. But the same commuter
omnibus operators, as reported in newspapers,are selling the
coupons. In a situation like ours, there will always be those who use
shortcuts and whatever means possible to make money. Some cannot
stomach the idea of standing for a long time in queues forcommuter
omnibuses. So, the solution is to gag the rank marshalls with cash.
Getting a national identity document, a birth certificate, let alone
apassport, which is every citizen’s constitutional right, is a hassle
too. In 1980, it would take less than three weeks to get a
nationalidentity document, less than three days to get a birth certificate
and lessthan seven days to get a passport. Now, you have to bribe
everybody starting the very moment you join thequeue. Government
institutions are so corrupt that even people who aresupposed to be enforcing
the law have joined the race. We have a fuel crisis that was triggered
by corruption at the NationalOil Company of Zimbabwe (NOCZIM) and we have a
looming power crisis blamedon corruption of the top brass at the Zimbabwe
Electricity Supply Authority(ZESA). Are the responsible people
facing the the music? No, they are gettingpromoted instead, or “retired”
with golden handshakes. Roadblocks are now called automated teller
machines (ATMs) in thepolice force. Policemen demand bribes from motorists
with impunity. This has resulted in accidents which could have been
avoided had roadunworthy vehicles been taken off the road. We have
become a corrupt nation such that we need a complete change ofattitude in us
all, starting with those at the top to the ordinary man inthe
street. That, with a bit of divine intervention will see us regain
ourrespectable place on the continent.

THE recent
Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) decision to increase thebenchmark repurchase
(repo) rate could clash with the government’s desire todepress money market
rates further down to curtail a sharp rise in theinterest cost on its
massive domestic debt, analysts said this week.

They warned that
central bank officials had to prepare for seriouscombat amid threats that a
government decree to lower money market rates wason the cards. An
economist close to Treasury said the government was eager to reducethe
financing cost of its expenditure and would want to dip into cheap fundswhen
it announces a supplementary budget anytime soon. "The Reserve Bank of
Zimbabwe still accepts to keep rates low fortargeted sectors, but it wants
to punish speculators, it wants to punishthose borrowing for consumption.
The clash comes on classifying thegovernment - is it a speculator or what? I
think it needs to be acceptedthat most of its borrowing is consumptive," the
economist said. Gibson Maunganidze, an economist and chief executive
officer ofSunshine Asset Management, said the conflict between the RBZ and
thegovernment was that of balancing political interests with
economicdevelopment matters. Maunganidze said he believes the
government should not be treated as aconsumptive borrower, even though it
did not qualify as a productive sector. "Punishing the government with
high interest rates would have a directimpact on the budget deficit," said
Maunganidze. "The government is not in the productive sector, but it's
a key playerin industry - it is the major consumer of industrial products
and thereforepromotes the productive sector in a big way," said
Maunganidze. He said various ministries - health, defence and
education, amongothers - were big spenders on locally manufactured
products. But John Robertson, an economic consultant, disputes this,
saying thegovernment deserves low interest rates only by reducing the rate
ofinflation. "What we need are producers and not consumers. The
government wants tore-arrange the landscape so that only them benefit. That
should not beacceptable," said Robertson. "The government has
become our principal competitor and the fact thatit is the biggest consumer
does not elevate its position - it's actuallyprejudicing the rest of the
consumers who are tax-payers," Robertsonmaintained. The RBZ said
although the low interest rates were desirable forstimulating investment,
the current high inflation levels - 300.10 percentyear-on-year for May -
clearly destroy the real worth of savings, withnegative consequences on
investment and economic growth. The RBZ last week hiked the repo rate,
a money market instrument whichallows domestic banks to cover unexpected
shortfalls in their daily cashrequirements, to an all-time high of 64.50
percent before allowing it toslip marginally to 64.38 during the
week. The repo rate determines the direction of commercial lending
rates andother money market rates. A rise in the repo rate usually indicates
thecentral bank's desire to hike interest rates across the board.
Robertson said the RBZ all along knew that low interest rates would
beunsustainable in a highly inflationary environment but had chosen to be
anaccomplice to political expediency when it accommodated the
government'splans for massive rate cuts. But now, he said, it was
too late to re-orient the market to save thegovernment, which is in a
quandary because its major source of funding, thedomestic market, has been
wiped out of savings because of poor returns onmoney market
investments. "All along, the central bank knew the low interest rates
would destroysavings. They now want to increase interest rates to encourage
people todeposit their money," Robertson told The Financial Gazette
. He said interest rates, which should have been used to curb
risinginflation, had instead become the major push to inflation because low
ratesencouraged speculative rather than productive borrowing. In
its arguments for high interest rates, the RBZ said that
entrenchedinflationary pressures in the economy could be overcome by raising
rates fornon-productive borrowers. Interest rates were first
drastically brought down under a monetarypolicy tailored to compliment the
year 2001 budget, falling by over 50percentage points from levels around 70
percent to around 10 percent. Having first increased the statutory
reserve ratio on demand depositsheld by commercial and merchant banks from
30 percent to 50 percent, the RBZmade arrangements to release these funds to
the productive sector at aconcessionary rate of 30 percent.
Productive sector companies engaged in exporting were made to borrowthrough
a concessionary export finance facility at a rate of 15 percent. At the
same time, the RBZ reduced the statutory ratio on time andsavings deposits
from 30 percent to 20 percent, depressing money marketrates to all-time
lows. But after realising that the low interest rates had culminated
into afrenzy of speculative borrowing, the government made a volte face at
thestart of the year, ordering the RBZ to force rates up to
curtailspeculators. But at the same time, it instructed the RBZ to
allow productive sectorcompanies to borrow through the concessionary
facility at subsidised rates,prompting the emergence of a dual interest rate
policy. Under this policy, the RBZ has been instructed to tighten
theborrowing process to make sure funding under the concessionary scheme
isused specifically for production and export, rather than for
speculation. The policy, designed to compliment the 2003 national
budget, gave theRBZ the task of ensuring that the interest rates policy
embraced thefollowing: lUpward review of deposit rates in order to
benefit savers andencourage savings; lUpward review of interest
rates on consumptive and speculativeactivities to dampen inflation through
curtailment of inflationary demandfor credit; and lNarrowing of the
current high spreads between deposit and lendingrates. In line with
that policy thrust, now being shot down by thegovernment, the RBZ has
allowed interest rates on non-productive borrowingto gradually firm
up. Analysts say there has been no evidence to show that the interest
rateconcessions that were granted to export and productive sector companies
hadindeed resulted in a boost in production. While some companies
threatened with collapse due to high gearingratios two years ago had indeed
raised their heads above the water, moneyborrowed under the concessionary
arrangement may have been used innon-productive deals. But critics
say that the two-tier interest rate policy may have stungthe government,
which is beginning to bear the brunt of high interest ratesbecause of its
huge domestic debt. Treasury Bills (TBs), through which the government
borrows from thedomestic money market, has risen sharply since January when
the dualinterest rate policy began operating. For instance, the
two-year TB rate, which started the year with ayield of 31.72 percent,
breached the 100 percent level to reach an all-timehigh of 103.26 percent in
May, although it marginally eased to a currentyield level of 95.95
percent. The one-year TB yield reached a peak of 104.49 after being
freed fromthe dip, while the one-year TB yield fell to 89.25
percent. But analysts expect that with the recent hike in the repo
rate, the TBrate is likely to rise into fresh territory, exposing the
government'sdomestic debt to unprecedented interest costs. A rate
of 100 percent on the government's borrowing charge woulddouble the debt,
analysts say. But the government would not be the only casualty of the
high cost ofmoney. Under the repo arrangement, Treasury Bills (TBs)
form the underlyingsecurity for borrowing. Banks with TB security
pay an interest charge 20 percentage pointsabove the repo rate, while those
without TB security pay 40 percentagepoints above the repo rate.
Commercial lending rates are likely to reflect the punitive nature ofthe
repo arrangement, dealers said yesterday Analysts said they expected
the banking institutions, which raisedtheir minimum lending rates to over 80
percent since January from rateshovering around 40 percent before the dual
interest rate policy, to beginraising their lending rates once more in line
with developments on the reporate. This, they warned, would have
significantly dangerous effects onindustrial operations that were not
benefiting from a concessionary interestrate policy. "There is a
dilemma regarding the appropriate interest rate regime. Onthe one hand,
government and the productive sectors require low interestrates, for reduced
costs on the budget and production costs respectively. Onthe other hand, low
interest rates, particularly on deposits, are clearlynot consistent with the
thrust of savings mobilisation," the RBZ said in itsreport.

A CRITICAL
food shortage has hit Zimbabwe harder than its regionalneighbours, with a
World Food Programme (WFP) report indicating that fourmillion out of 6.5
million southern Africa’s starving souls are in thecountry.

“The new southern Africa Regional Emergency Operation (EMOP) willattempt to
distribute 540 000 metric tonnes of food aid to 6.5 millionpeople in six
countries from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004. Zimbabwe is thehardest hit
country in the region,” said the WFP report on the country’shumanitarian
situation. “WFP will do its best to meet the needs of four million
Zimbabweans …successful achievement of this target will depend on further
generoussupport from donors,” the report said. Sadly, it noted that
the country was yet to follow its request forfood aid with a formal appeal
to the international community, with the WFPreporting that it will run out
of food stocks next month. The WFP said in its report, the latest in a
series of humanitarianupdates on the country’s food security situation, that
it had preparedZimbabwe’s component of the wider EMOP based on a written
request forhumanitarian assistance from the Ministry of Labour, Public
Service andSocial Welfare in late May. It was still awaiting a
formal appeal for specific amounts of food aidfrom the country’s
authorities. “Several major donors have made it clear they require such
an appealbefore committing resources to fund food aid to Zimbabwe. It takes
at leastthree months after a donor pledge is made for food aid to arrive in
acountry,” the WFP said. Zimbabwe, going through its worst ever
economic crisis sinceindependence in 1980, is facing a serious food shortage
this year due topoor harvests caused by drought and the expropriation of
white-owned farmsfor peasant black farmers. Most of the reallocated
land is idle because the new farmers have noresources to till the land, let
alone funding to buy critical inputs. The WFP, whose humanitarian
assistance curtailed a famine last year,said its remaining stocks will last
only the next month. “WFP remains extremely concerned about the lack of
food security andthe anticipated very limited supply of food in Zimbabwe…the
agency continuesto advocate for lifting of the monopoly on the import of
staple foods and ofthe application of retail price controls on staple foods.
This isparticularly important given the serious shortage of foreign
currency, whichit is feared will limit the government of Zimbabwe’s food
import capacity,”the report said. The WFP Zimbabwe operations
started as a procurement office with fiveemployees to become a massive
relief operation with more than 200 employeesin less than a year.

THE lack of finance
among newly resettled farmers has led to a drasticreduction in the area
under the winter wheat crop by 66.6 percent, anagricultural expert has
said.

The agricultural expert, who spoke on condition that he was
not named,said recent surveys have revealed that only 3 000 hectares have
been putunder wheat by commercial farmers whilst the resettled farmers,
agriculturalinstitutions, communal farmers and indigenous commercial farmers
haveplanted no less than 17 000 hectares. The normal winter wheat
hectarage is 60 000. “The decrease in the hectarage under wheat has
mainly been due to theincapacity by the resettled farmers to make use of the
land acquired fromthe former commercial farmers because of lack of capital
to finance thecrop,” the expert said. White-owned commercial
farmers used to produce 90 percent of thecountry’s wheat requirements of at
least 300 000 tonnes while the other 60000 tonnes were imported.
However, the agricultural expert said at most the farmers wouldproduce 100
000 tonnes, a figure amounting to only a third of the
nationalrequirement. The shortages of fuel and the vandalism of
irrigation equipment oncommercial farms have also affected the winter
crop. The price of fertiliser has also gone up in less than three
months byover 300 percent and this has plunged the farming sector into
uncertainty asmost farmers lack capital. Zimbabwean fertiliser
firms have been facing shortages of foreigncurrency to purchase raw
materials for the production of the major commodityin the farming
industry. “The continued problems in the agricultural sector are a
nightmare tofarmers. We cannot sustain the increases in prices because
farmers do nothave a fertiliser company, so government, farmers and the
fertilisercompanies should find a lasting solution to the industry,” said
DavidsonMugabe, president of the Indigenous Commercial Farmers’
Union. Mugabe said if conditions had been normal resettled farmers
wouldplant between 50 000 and 60 000 hectares and produce almost 200 000
tonnes.

I remember arriving home
for a boarding school-break only to discoverthat my favourite swimming
stream had been declared out of bounds for theentire village.

I
found it a joke that was not funny to be told that that shallow pondhad all
of a sudden deepened very much after a mermaid (njuzu) relocated tothat part
of the river. One day, when the elders were too engrossed in other
things to takenotice of us, a couple of friends and I sneaked down to the
forbidden pondto discover for ourselves what had all of a sudden made our
favouriteswimming spot sacred. When we got there it was all quiet.
The water was calm, serene butdark and yet, previously we could make out the
sandy bottom of the river. There was nothing to be afraid of at first,
but when we dipped a verylong branch into the stream and failed to feel the
bottom, we immediatelyknew something was amiss. No one spoke, our
blood raced and our hearts skipped beats as we ranaway without looking back.
We never returned to that part of the riveragain. Even today I
never cease to wonder just how deep that pond had reallybecome.
Indeed, I can’t stop speculating just how deep Zimbabwe’s pool ofproblems
really is. But just how deep? I am as curious to know as I was about
thatforbidden pond. Apparently on the surface everything is fine in
Zimbabwe because thereis no election, no mass action, no civil war, no
stayaway — the water isstagnant, its still. Nevertheless, stagnant
water breeds disease and still waters run deep. When the tide
eventually turns, the turbulence of the waters willengulf the political and
economic disease that has been breeding in thisocean of once very beautiful
waters. President Robert Mugabe is navigating on still waters whose
depth hehas no concept of. The danger really lies in both the depth and
thecalmness. Things might appear tranquil but what is going on under
indicatesthat soon the sea will be boiling. How then will the old man row
hither andthither? Zimbabweans need to steadfastly refuse to be the
wretched of thelearned elite in Africa and indeed the world. Now
and again it is difficult to understand the timidity and docilitylet alone
the unbearable tolerance we have come to be associated with whenconfronting
ZANU PF. It’s a marvel how we always adjust or tighten screws when the
price ofanything goes up. In fact, the way we systematically adapt is
outrageous. We are frequently noisome about the availability of a
commodityinstead of crying foul over the scandalous prices. But the
moment we protest about the pricing of an item, it vanishesinto thin
air. This is the vicious whirlpool that goes on beneath the still
waters ofthe land between the great rivers. Zimbabweans are just
surviving, making the waters appear composed andrevealing poignant ignorance
about the magnitude of the economic decline. We have sort of hardened
towards hardships and I’d say we are the mostdignified resilient lot that
history will tirelessly refer to. Due to our civilisation we have put
up a façade that the water isstill. It’s easy for the international
community to notice still water thanto gauge the depth of the pool.
We have lied to ourselves and to the world that inflation is 364.5percent
deep, that the foreign currency exchange rate is US$1:Z$824 and yetit runs
deeper, perhaps much deeper than the sacred stream of the good olddays of my
infancy. We have had to seek divine intervention to sort our political
andeconomic impasse. Every Sunday the churches have interceded to the
Almightyfor a solution to evict the mermaid (njuzu) that has taken away our
swimmingand fishing privilege. Men of the cloth have taken it upon
themselves to resuscitate thebeleaguered ZANU PF/MDC talks. This
epic appeal to the heavens goes to show that Zimbabwe’s crisis isbeyond the
natural hence the prayers to the supernatural. We cannot even tell how
many refugees are in the Diaspora,particularly in the UK. A hundred
thousand? Five hundred thousand? Amillion? We just can’t tell how
deep. There is also decay in the rule of law. Apart from the
usuallawlessness of police brutality, political violence and human rights
abuses,at a deeper level, the stench of the rotting MDC poll petitions
cannot beendured anymore. A suffocating lawyer brought this to my
attention. His very passionateargument is that: the greatest assault to the
rule of law is the deliberatedelay in dealing with the poll
petitions. Clearly, at the rate at which the cases are being handled we
will beelecting other parliamentarians and another president before the
hearingsare through. I was moved to phone Advocate Adrian de
Bourbon who is handling theMDC poll petition cases and he too, did not sound
too amused about what washolding the hearings. “The problem is that
they can’t find a date for the hearings. The nextcase will only be heard on
November 3 2003,” he said. Asked why the hearings were taking so long,
he said the legal answerlay with the Judge President Paddington Garwe who,
apparently, is notmandated to comment to the Press. November 3
2003! That’s about 20 months before the next generalelections.
Suppose the cases take between three to six months to be concluded
andsuppose some MDC members win. They will only be in office for about a
yearperhaps, before they contest in the 2005 general election again, only
tolose and appeal to the courts once more, whereupon the hearing will take
yetanother three years! Someone in the legal, justice and
parliamentary affairs ministry musthave got a salary increase to obscure the
course of justice. We need to hear these cases pronto. We need to hear
that our vote isnot a secret because the ballot paper is transparent enough
to be seen bythe polling officer to whom the voter must display before
dropping it in theballot box. We need to hear of the rural elite,
especially teachers being forcedto claim illiteracy and then being assisted
to vote by polling officers whoare known warlords. We need to hear
of those who voted in order to obtain a maizeallocation. We need to
know of the retributions, the violent campaign strategies,ghost voters and
so on. At least these cases could be quite a long branch that could
beinvaluable in measuring the depth of Zimbabwe’s pool of problems.
There is no way we can continue daydreaming about a re-run of theelections
unless the court proceedings document and expose that theelections were
indeed flawed and of course stolen. Because we do not know how deep our
pool of problems is we are nobetter than someone on the death row is, for we
shall drown in these waters. It seems that what someone told us in
church over the weekend hasdepth: “Zimbabwe’s economy is a dead man
walking.” I can only imagine that right at the bottom of Zimbabwe’s
still watersthere can only be a frightening graveyard where no one rests in
peace.